Mississippi Religious Freedom Bill Goes Before Appeals Court

clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2017/04/02/religious-liberty-anti-gay-appeals-court-decide/99787030/

Almost a year after becoming law in Mississippi, the religious objection bill aimed at the gay community will be the focus of oral arguments in a federal appeals court Monday.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi — which describes the law, House Bill 1523, as one of many enacted recently across the country that discriminates against LGBT people — looks at HB 1523 as one of the worst and the furthest along within the legal process so far.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in Lubbock, Texas, following Gov. Phil Bryant's appeal of a federal judge's decision declaring HB 1523 unconstitutional. In his June order, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves said HB 1523 does not, despite its name, honor the nation's tradition of religious freedom. The law has never been enforced.

Mississippi is not alone. HB 1523 is one bill in a wave of similar legislation proposed or adopted across the country in the last few years. Opponents argue these measures would legalize discrimination against the LGBT community.

1. Arkansas - SB 975

Allows someone to sue over a nondiscrimination law that burdens his religious beliefs; SB 202 bars local laws from creating protected classes.

2. Florida - HB 43/SB 110

Allows clergy and churches to refuse to perform marriages for same-sex couples.

3. Indiana - SB 101

Allows someone to sue over a nondiscrimination law that burdens his religious beliefs.

4. Kansas - SB 175

Requires public colleges and universities to give access to funding and use of facilities to student groups even if they discriminate based on religious beliefs.

5. North Carolina - SB 2

Exempts state officials from having to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples; HB 2, which was amended Thursday, requires individuals to use the bathrooms corresponding to the sex listed on their birth certificates.

6. Michigan - HB 4188, HB 4189 and HB 4190

Allows adoption and foster care agencies to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples.

7. Mississippi - HB 1523

(Became law April 5, 2016): Allows government officials and businesses to deny services to gay couples wishing to get married.

8. Tennessee - HB 1840/SB 1556

(Became law April 27, 2016): Allows those providing professional services to deny those services based on religious beliefs.

9. Utah - SB 297

Exempts state officials from having to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Thanks for the reminder I guess? What response are you even looking for?

I'm wondering if Sup Forums thinks these bills would even hold up to a federal court challenge if these laws are enforced.

Well in that case, I hope this one works...
>Allows clergy and churches to refuse to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
This one is specifically about freedom of choice and freedom to practice religion. Makes perfect sense imo

But clergy have NEVER been compelled by any judge to do that in the first place.

I think there is significant pressure for that to become a thing nowadays. What was that little family bakery that got completely fucked over because they didn't want to serve a gay couple?

That has literally never happened in the U.S. That is hysteria. The bakery in Lakewood Colorado? All they had to do was bake a cake with no message on the top to comply with a state anti-discrimination ordinance. In the end they weren't even fined just required to comply with the law to which they responded by ending baking wedding cakes in general, which is their choice.

The problem wasn't the fine but the massive social stigma that hit them. The pressure to be lgbt is incredibly strong

They actually got a lot of support from customers after the case. They are still in business.

Strange, I heard the opposite

sauce?

Good thread!

Don't have it offhand. I want to say it was hearsay

You're morally bankrupt if you think a person should be forced by the state to make a free market transaction for another person for an inconsequential service like this.

I think he could have just made them a cake with no message on it. If he is unwilling to bake cakes at all for gay people, that is an issue.

>Sorry, we don't make gay wedding cakes

If they don't offer a service, the state can't force them to provide that service, can they? Or can the government kick your auto mechanic's door down and force him to perform keyhole surgeries?

They make cakes. In that case the baker shut down any discussion of it. They could have made a cake without a message on it in the customer's choice of flavor!

What does the bill actually do?

Also
>implying buying cakes are a right
>implying marriage is a right
>implying adoption/foster care is a right
>implying professional services are a right

Well nothing because it has not been enforced. Pandered to a religious constituency. The law has already been overturned by a federal judge. I wonder if these laws (which exist or are trying to be passed in other states) would hold up to a court challenge if they WERE enforced.

They exchange cakes that they've baked for money. If they don't accept the money, there's no exchange. It's still their own fucking property until it changes hands, you can't take someone's property.